Advertisement

An Exploration of Gender Bias, Framing, and Student Loan Decisions Through an Experimental Design

  • Travis P. MountainEmail author
  • Namhoon Kim
  • Michael S. Gutter
  • Elizabeth Kiss
  • Soo Hyun Cho
  • Carrie L. Johnson
Original Paper
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

As student loan debt is one of the fastest growing concerns for American households today, we need to understand the decision making behind student loan behavior to deal with the high student loan debt level properly. For this purpose, following a behavioral economics framework, we examine how variation in framing scenarios including gender bias, negative and positive framing, and aspiration for college degree framing, affects participant’s perceptions about the wisdom of using student loans and appropriate borrowing amounts. To analyze these framing affects, we obtained 1847 participants through an online survey describing a hypothetical student’s considerations related to attending college. We applied nonlinear regression with probit analysis and found that participants in the experiment had an implicit gender bias by recommending higher student loan debt for men than for women. However, additional information regarding the value of a college degree given in the female scenario encouraged them to take student loans and increase the amount of student loans.

Keywords

Framing and reference points Gender Online experiment Student loan Implicit bias 

Notes

References

  1. Bakar, E., Masud, J., & Jusoh, Z. (2006). Knowledge, attitude and perceptions of university students towards educational loans in Malaysia. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(4), 692–701.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-006-9035-6.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9–49.  https://doi.org/10.1086/258724.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, G. S. (1992). Human capital and the economy. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 136(1), 85–92.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G. S. (1994). Human capital revisited. In G. S. Becker (Ed.), Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd ed., pp. 15–28). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boatman, E. S. (2014). Applying the lessons of behavioral economics to improve the federal student loan programs: Six policy recommendations. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/ideas_summit/.
  6. Caetano, G., Patrinos, H. A., & Palacios, M. (2011). Measuring aversion to debt: An experiment among student loan candidates. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5737.Google Scholar
  7. Cha, K.-W., Weagley, R. O., & Reynolds, L. (2005). Parental borrowing for dependent children’s higher education. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26(3), 299–321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-005-5900-y.Google Scholar
  8. Chamie, J. (2014). Women more educated than men but still paid less. Yale Global Online, 6. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/women-more-educated-menstill-paid-less-men.
  9. Chapman, E. N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2013). Physicians and implicit bias: How doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(11), 1504–1510.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2441-1.Google Scholar
  10. Cho, S. H., Mountain, T. P., Porto, N., Kiss, E. D., Gutter, M. S., & Griesdorn, T. (2016). Experimental design to understand the student loan decision: A methodological note. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 45(1), 65–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12186.Google Scholar
  11. Churaman, C. V. (1992). Financing of college education by single-parent and two-parent families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 13(1), 95–112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01013647.Google Scholar
  12. Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2012). Graduating to a pay gap: The earnings of women and men one year after college graduation. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.Google Scholar
  13. Dwyer, R. E., Hodson, R., & McCloud, L. (2013). Gender, debt, and dropping out of college. Gender & Society, 27(1), 30–55.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212464906.Google Scholar
  14. Ewert, S. (2012). Fewer diplomas for men: The influence of college experiences on the gender gap in college graduation. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(6), 824–850.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2012.11777271.Google Scholar
  15. Field, E. (2009). Education debt burden and career choice: Evidence from a financial aid experiment at NYU Law School. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  16. FRB. (2017). Quarterly Report On Household Debt and Credit. New York. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/pdf/HHDC_2017Q2.pdf.
  17. Fry, R. (2014). The changing profile of student borrowers: Biggest increase in borrowing has been among more affluent students. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/10/07/the-changing-profile-of-student-borrowers/.
  18. Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review, 94(4), 945–967.Google Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D., & Amos, T. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
  20. Ratcliffe, C., & McKernan, S.-M. (2013). Forever in your debt: Who has student loan debt, and who’s worried. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  21. Sajaia, Z. (2008). Maximum likelihood estimation of a bivariate ordered probit model: Implementation and Monte Carlo simulations. The Stata Journal, 4(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  22. Schubert, R., Brown, M., Gysler, M., & Brachinger, H. (1999). Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse? Gender and Economic Transacitons, 89(2), 381–385.Google Scholar
  23. Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13–36.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.1.13.Google Scholar
  24. Yilmazer, T. (2008). Saving for children’s college education: An empirical analysis of the trade-off between the quality and quantity of children. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(2), 307–324.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-008-9105-z.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsVirginia Tech UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural & Rural Policy ResearchKorea Rural Economic InstituteJeollanamdoSouth Korea
  3. 3.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.School of Family Studies and Human ServicesKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  5. 5.Department of Family & Consumer SciencesCalifornia State University-Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  6. 6.NDSU Extension, Department of Human Development & Family ScienceNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations